Open internet

The internet has, from its earliest years, been an organic, growing phenomenon: a network of computer networks to which more networks were added. That gave it a democratic, open quality: there was no single centralised control.

These origins have undoubtedly informed people’s expectations and ideas about how a digital society should function. They aspire to an open internet, though there are many different ways in which openness can be defined – or denied.

Firstly, the open digital society is to be inclusive, rather than exclusive: the internet should not be the means to create a new separation of haves and have-nots. Indeed, many of the societal improvements that could be delivered by the internet – e-health services; e-government; greater accountability; improved transparency – will be empty promises if substantial parts of Europe’s population do not have access to the internet. Digital technology offers new opportunities for accessibility and inclusion to those previously excluded – eg, the housebound or the one billion with a disability – so it would be perverse if it became a source of further exclusion.

Access is, however, a concept with various facets: technology – for instance the availability of network infrastructure that will carry high-speed internet even to underpopulated rural areas, which itself prompts debate about what regulatory framework will attract the necessary investment; costs – so that citizens are not deterred by retail prices from availing themselves of the internet, nor service providers deterred by a hostile or expensive regulatory regime from offering their services; and education – citizens require a basic level of technical skill so that they are not intimidated from engaging with the internet.

Openness can be eroded as commercial platforms and become dominant in particular areas of digital life. Regulators are presented with a challenge: should they intervene to preserve the openness of the internet and prevent users being locked into a dependence on one particular technology? Their response has generally been to seek to establish open standards and to ensure interoperability between different technologies. The principle of the ‘portability of digital life’ was highlighted by the European Council in 2013. Consumers should be free to move their applications and content between different devices and platforms.

Territorial restrictions on content present another challenge. Such restrictions can take different forms. Repressive or secretive governments might attempt to prevent their citizens from seeing particular information. Television companies might only have the copyright to show their material via the internet in particular countries.

Service or content suppliers might be prevented by tax rules from supplying material or services to particular territory. Each of these presents a challenge to the ideal of an open and democratic internet.

Taking aim at geo-blocking earlier this month, Andrus Ansip, the European Commission’s vice-president for the digital single market, professed his attachment to a vision of openness and fairness.

“Deep in my heart, I hate geo-blocking. It is old-fashioned and it is not fair. We do not have to use these instruments in the 21st century.”

Ansip’s challenge – and that of other regulators – is finding appropriate regulatory instruments that will allow the internet to develop, while protecting the core value of openness.